No, the sixteen little words are not "I love you" repeated five times, followed by "maybe." They are a single sentence in President Bush's State of the Union Address in January of this year. There is now a carefully generated flap about that sentence in which the President said that "British intelligence" had reported that "Iraq is trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

Let's put that in context, take it apart brick by brick, and see what we have.

Niger is the leading producer of uranium in Africa and also has very limited security concerning the sales of that product. Iraq already had some raw uranium, most of it from Niger. Iraqis are already suffering medically from that uranium because looters sold them the uranium barrels, and people used them to wash their and their children's clothes. Plus, an Iraqi nuclear scientist has already turned over the pieces of a centrifuge (used to refine uranium ore for use) from its directed hiding place under his rose bushes.

Also, the UN inspectors had already reported, before they were thrown out by Saddam Hussein, that Iraq had an incipient nuclear program a decade ago. Yet none of this background appears in most of the current "sixteen words" stories. Seeking to buy more uranium is a minor story  seeking to buy the first uranium ever would be a major story. As I write this, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain has just stated in a press conference that Iraq previously purchased "750 tons of uranium from Niger." That's enough, if refined and put in weapons, to destroy all of America's twenty largest cities. To the press: Do your d*mned homework before you write a story.

Assorted Democrats are now claiming that they "wouldn't have supported the war against Iraq" had they known that this one sentence was inaccurate. Helloooo. According to my calendar, October, 2002, when Congress voted to approve war powers against Iraq, occurred three months BEFORE January, 2003, when the sentence in question appeared in the State of the Union Address. To the press: If you don't have history books, you do have calendars, don't you?

The standard of accuracy in intelligence cannot ever be that it must be 100% accurate. If that were the standard, intelligence would be useless. We would know for sure we were in danger only when bombs started exploding in American cities. Consider the flap over the "failure of intelligence prior to 9/11." Other than a few kooks, some of them unfortunately holding elected office, no one is seriously suggesting that there was a plan in writing somewhere, saying where and how the attack on 9/11 would be made, which the CIA should have found. The argument is only over whether there were indications somewhere that the CIA and others should have found, before 9/11. To the press: you HAVE heard about the alleged "intelligence failure concerning 9/11" haven't you? If not, do your d*mned homework.

The proper standard for intelligence is the best available information, at the time it is needed. Even just a single report from a dubious source that Admiral Yamamoto was headed for Pearl Harbor with a Japanese fleet should have been followed up aggressively. There are books out now which claim that President Roosevelt had exactly such a warning from a single dubious source. The claimed source was a double agent in Holland. No action was taken on that single source, and most of the American Pacific Fleet was destroyed at anchor in Pearl Harbor. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

What is the overall accuracy of President Bush's State of the Union Address? It contains 5,494 words. Of those, sixteen were possibly not accurate, or not sufficiently sourced to be presented as accurate. That amounts to 99.71% accuracy. The State of the Union Addresses by President Clinton were longer (he was a long-winded cuss, wasn't he?). Measured by the same standard, were Clinton's various speeches 99.71% accurate? There is that little problem of the bombing of the Sudanese aspirin factory. How about the legendary "that woman" speech? How about the "campaign contributions did not influence" speech on the Loral money for the Chinese missile exemption? Don't get me started. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

How have all American presidents made use of intelligence in time of war? In every case, beginning with James Madison under whom we declared (and nearly lost) the War of 1812 against Great Britain, the answer is the same. Each president has held in confidence most of the military intelligence that he received. Each has revealed publicly only the tip of the iceberg in intelligence  only when it was essential in communicating with Congress, or in the modern era in speaking directly with the American people.

We even began one particular war based on intelligence we believed at the time, but shown to be false more than a century later. We started the Spanish-American War based on the belief that the USS Maine was blown up by saboteurs while at anchor in Havana. As a result of that war, both Cuba and the Philippines were freed from Spanish domination and became independent nations. But undersea archeological research in recent years has pretty well established that the Maine was not attacked but sank because of a sadly common occurrence, an explosion of coal dust in one of its bunkers. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

The saddest part of this whole flap is the few but strident people who are claiming that "President Bush lied to the American people" in order to promote the war on Iraq. This one sentence was not based solely on the forged documents (a very interesting question is whether our good friends, the French, were involved in that forgery). There were additional sources. No legitimate charge can be made that anyone "lied" unless there are reasons to believe that he said something, knowing it to be false. Since there are several sources for this sentence, the only question is whether the sources were solid enough for the President to have mentioned it. There is no basis to conclude that the President "knew this was false" and said it anyway. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

More than any other Chief Executive of any other organization on the face of the planet, the President of the United States of necessity relies on staff work to produce the information he uses in all his public presentations and decisions. Does the press actually think that George Bush is up at 3 a.m. with headphones clamped over his ears, listening to and translating intercepted cell phone calls conducted in Arabic? To the press: Apply a little common sense here.

Now we turn to the current situation in Iraq. The press is accurately reporting the deaths of American, and allied, soldiers in that occupation and various acts of sabotage. But what are they not reporting?

Has America ever occupied another nation after defeating it in war, and then created there a stable democratic government to replace its prior dictatorship? Why, yes, we did that in Germany and Japan after World War II. (It was in all the papers.) Did American soldiers die in both places during those occupations? Yes.

The death rate in Japan was quite low, because the Japanese still held fealty to the Emperor and the Emperor had urged them not to resist. The same was not true in Germany. Shortly before the fall of Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, created an organization known as the "Werewolves." They were directed to kill American soldiers and German collaborators with the occupation, and to sabotage public facilities and utilities. How many Americans were killed? How many attacks took place? How do the histories of occupied Japan and Germany compare to the current events in Iraq? To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

And if the press were really on their toes, they would compare the death rates of the young men and women in Iraq with the rates for the same number of civilians of the same age on American highways. And with the death rates for the same age groups in major American cities. The short of it is, our soldiers are safer in Baghdad than in Washington, D.C., and only slightly more at risk than on American highways. It's called comparative risk analysis. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

The most shrill and absurd criticisms of the occupation in Iraq are that we should be finished and get out within months. In both Japan and Germany, the "nation-building" was not complete for about two years. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

And now we turn to Saddam Hussein and the latest purported tape from him a week ago, urging Iraqis to "kill the invaders and drive them out of Iraq." Assume that the tape is genuine and that Hussein is still alive. It was six months after the Allies found the two burned bodies outside the bunker in Berlin that forensic analysis and other evidence led to the conclusion that Adolf Hitler was definitely dead. Until that point, the "Werewolves" could claim that they were acting in the cause of their Fuhrer who was still alive. To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

Were the die-hards who fought against the prior American occupations, the very few in Japan and the few in Germany, either "regrouping," or gaining strength, or in any way capable of sustaining a "guerilla war" against the Americans? They were not. They were killed, or captured -- or captured, tried and executed -- with dispatch. But that didn't happen instantaneously. What does that suggest about the future of the occupation in Iraq? To the press: Do your d*mned homework.

The best way to separate the sheep from the goats in any political debate  not just on questions of war and peace  is to look for consistency. Which critics have been consistent in their statements and their votes? Which ones have flip-flopped in both ways on the subject of the Iraq War, based not on perceived facts but on what position seemed marketable at the time to various constituencies? Those engaging in hypocrisy can be exposed by setting forth their prior statements and actions. Those who have been consistent must be forced to answer this question: "Should Saddam Hussein have remained in power, and continued to fill mass graves with the bodies of murdered women and children?" To the press: Do your d*mned homework, and ask the obvious questions.

If it's too much trouble to insist that the press get and read history books, there's an easier route to the same end. Go to your nearest video store. Get the movie MacArthur, starring Gregory Peck. Pay attention to the portions of that plot which deal with the occupation of Japan. And while you're at it, get the movie Patton, starring George C. Scott. Pay attention to the portions of that plot which deal with the occupation of Germany. In other words: Do your d*mned homework.

Everything in this column was accumulated by a country lawyer in a farm house deep in the Blue Ridge Mountains. All it took were access to the Internet, the ability to frame the necessary questions, and the ability to type. If that can be done by an unpaid journalist in the middle of nowhere, why can't it be done by full-time reporters knocking down significant salaries in the hearts of major cities? All it takes is logic, and the ability to follow the facts wherever they lead. Is that too much to ask?

In the larger scheme of things, President Bush's sixteen little words "don't amount to a hill of beans," as Rick said to Ilsa on the tarmac of that fog-shrouded airport at the end of Casablanca. In the midst of a war, it's especially important to distinguish what is really important, from what is not. Maybe the American press should rent that movie, also.

- 30 -

John Armor is an author and attorney. He specializes in appeals cases, filing his 17th brief in the Supreme Court last week in the campaign finance case.

You know, I have to agree with a phrase that Mark Steyn wrote in a recent column. It fits Chris Matthews' hissy-fits over the last few days, and really sums up his attitude given how wrong his predictions on the result of the US/Iraq war.

Did you hear "Lamont" on the Hannity radio show today? I'm paraphrasing here, and I'm not sure I heard this correctly, but Lamont (a Black American) said that Bush's SOTU statement may have been wrong, but it was an honest mistake.

He went on to imply that we were correct in removing Saddam because it "...sends a message. Screw with the United States of America and we will bitch-slap you into the middle of next month."

I'm beginning to think this is one of those issues that, no matter how much rational reasoning there is, Democrats, in conjunction with their liberal media buds, are going to continue. And there WILL be some confused souls who are incapable of seeing the truth and decide that President Bush really did something worse than Slick ever did!

I'm beginning to think this is one of those issues that, no matter how much rational reasoning there is, Democrats, in conjunction with their liberal media buds, are going to continue. And there WILL be some confused souls who are incapable of seeing the truth and decide that President Bush really did something worse than Slick ever did!

I'm seriously PO'd at the press (including FoxNews) for refusing to acknowledge the great work being done by our young Americans helping Iraq get back on its feet. Each day our team makes progress in medical care, infrastructure, recreational facilities, government systems, security, and public relations.

But all we hear is about the death (by hitmen) of noble Americans. We aren't even reminded that they are noble. We aren't reminded that thugs are responsible.

IMO, this is "Against the Troops" rather than "Support the Troops." If you focus on the deaths without giving them MEANING IN CONTEXT, then you are robbing families of pride, consolation, and direction when they think of their loved ones. This is true whether the soldier is one of the deaths or is among the living.

The greatest family support in the world for deployed troops is to demonstrate the nobility of their efforts.

The media comes across like it hates soldiers, soldier families, and the United States of America.

It does seem FNC has climbed aboard the "quagmire in Iraq" bandwagon. I've started to use my mute button with them this week because it seemed like all I was hearing was "Quagmire, guerrilla warfare in Iraq, Kobe, Laci, Tony Blair, quagmire, 3rd ID upset, guerrilla warfare, Kobe, quagmire. And, in other news, 16 words, did Bush lie, quagmire. FOX NEWS ALERT! QUAGMIRE!"

Uh oh. Mute off. Ann Coulter on Hannity & Colmes right now. LOL

12
posted on 07/18/2003 6:53:12 PM PDT
by arasina
(Conservatives, be CONFIDENT! [My new fightin' words!] WE WILL PREVAIL!)

It is hard for me to isolate which element of this conflagration distresses me more: the inability of a Republican President to frame and coherently argue an issue to his advantage from the bully pulpit of the Presidency or the incredibly lame rebuttal: "It was just one sentence in a single speech"

The President of the United States arguably makes approximately two dozen speeches in his career- one or two inaugural speeches;four or eight State of the Union Addresses; one or two major policy speeches and the odd declaration of war or emergency interspersed with communiques on Foreign Tours.

Every word in every one of those speeches is part of his legacy from Washington's admonition to "beware entangling foreign alliances" to Lincoln's Gettysburg address to Eisenhower's "beware the military-industrial complex".

Defining phrases can be found for almost every President: Kennedy-"Ich bin ein Berliner"; Reagan-"Mr. Gorbachav, tear down this wall";FDR-"A day that will live in infamy";even Jimmy Carter's infamous "malaise speech".

Into this honorable lineage enters the first President of the 21st Century- a man who willfully refuses to correctly pronounce "Nuclear" in every public venue in which he appears; a man whose signature is on "Campaign Finance Reform" Legislation-designed to UnConstitutionally muzzle a certain type of unpopular speech.

Saddam Hussein remains at large. Weapons of Mass Destruction remain just as dangerous as they were before the Iraq invasion and Al Qaeda waits to strike again.

When exactly will this President and the Washington establishment honor their oath to Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States?

Nero fiddled while Rome burned, the United States Kakistocracy twiddles while the Constitution smolders.

We have all seen this tactic used before. Where? Take a trip on the way back machine (search ENRON and go back to October 2002 just before the last election.)

The Democrats want to punish President Bush. If he does not do anything wrong, they will invent something.

It is not working, and they can not figure out why. Should we tell them, or let them continue destroying themselves?

Hint, you guys no longer own the gatekeeper to information.

Someone once said that a lie would be halfway around the world before the truth got out of bed. Not anymore. Put a lie out today, and there are somewhere someplace awake to counter it.

There was a time the left could say one thing at one place and something else somewhere else, but those times are over. Everything they say is being recorded, cataloged, and available for their own words to condemn themselves. What a great time to be alive.

I guess you think that printing your opinion in italics and bold makes it more important. Au contraire.

My father, from the Rio Grande Valley, said "nucular" all his life. He was one of the smartest people I have ever known. It didn't seem to bother my mother, who was an English teacher and eventually a dean at a university.

I am especially gratified by your response in light of your serice to our nation. Of all the people who go onto battlefields wearing the uniforms of our nation, two groups stand out. Both wear crosses and do not carry weapons. They are the medics and the chaplains.

A salute to you, sir. And thank you for your comments, which I heartily agree with.

The 'Rats are aligning themselves with Saddam. Somehow, I doubt that is winning strategery. Shrillary is far from being the smartest person in the world, but she is smart enough to stay away from the 2004 Democratic train wreck (the POTUS Nomination).

Shortly before the fall of Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, created an organization known as the "Werewolves." They were directed to kill American soldiers and German collaborators with the occupation, and to sabotage public facilities and utilities. How many Americans were killed? How many attacks took place?

I guess you think that printing your opinion in italics and bold makes it more important. Au contraire.

Actually, I would prefer to use Edwardian Script Font in eight point type, but I have been advised it is not possible to enable that HTML code on Free Republic. The choice is limited to one of three or four options and I make my selection accordingly.

My father, from the Rio Grande Valley, said "nucular" all his life. He was one of the smartest people I have ever known. It didn't seem to bother my mother, who was an English teacher and eventually a dean at a university.

Everything you say is true and logical if the people in the press are honest and genuinely after the getting and reporting of the truth.

My take is, this is not a case of the Media being lazy (which many are), stupid (which some are), incompetent (which is possible) or in a feeding-frenzy (which is usual).

It is a case of this fitting their agendas nicely. So, they are feeding this story by aiding and abetting the liars and scoundrels who assert it. In other words, they are in collusion to destroy President Bush (whom they hate), our successful actions in Iraq (which they detest) and our overall War On Terror (which they don't believe is warranted).

Why? Because they are ideologically wont to do so. They have the means and also the advantage of being encouraged by the Democrats, which may as well be renamed the American Baathocrat Party. Remember, this is all the same crowd that stood by and defended the clintons and their criminality for eight long years.

It's in their nature, just as it is in a dog's nature to return to his own vomit.

To the press: Do your d*mned homework Everything you say is true and logical if the people in the press are honest and genuinely after the getting and reporting of the truth.

I take it even further: the press has done their homework perfectly-they have found a focus group concept which creates the most confusion with the smallest amount of explanation.

I understand there are now TV commercials in some markets that whittle the 16 word video down to : The Iraqi's were trying to buy Uranium from Niger-thus effectively broadcasting the image of Bush as a complete liar.

The administration's response to this hokem is a curiously defensive consciousness-of-guilt rebuttal to the effect the speech was not relevant or the statement significant.

It is remarkable to watch the Democrats manufacture a complete lie from whole cloth into conventional wisdom while Republicans are unable to take a simple truth and defend it with any vigor or competence.

A little off the mark as it were but never the less the fact is "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Thursday that 42,815 people died in auto accidents in 2002, an increase of 1.5% from 2001. At the same time, the number of injuries dropped, from 3.03 million in 2001 to 2.92 million in 2002." Not to mention hundreds of others in non-auto related deaths. The fixation of the various media on a daily count of American military deaths in Iraq is a little sick IMHO. It's just not PC to report those dying of AIDS.......

31
posted on 07/20/2003 8:09:52 AM PDT
by yoe
(When Hillary speaks, you can hear those big boots coming across the bridge......)

In my household, goats are looked on with favor, as are weasels (it's a LONG story). So I apologize to all goats, everywhere.

But no, this does NOT make me yearn for a return of Laci Peterson, 24/7 on cable news. Unless his lawyer, Geragos, is incompetent, Scott Peterson will plead guilty to one count of murder, with no death penalty, and that will be that. All the other press blather between now and then is worthless twaddle and a waste of time.

I was up until 3:15 a.m. this morning, tracking down real figures on attacks, sabotage and casualties in Germany after WW II. Finally found the records for VII Corps (Patton's unit). Sent the info to Jerry Agar on-air in Raleigh, who's temporarily filling in for their morning man. He broke the story this morning.

Does it also distress you that those 16 words were also quite accurate?

In the context of this discussion accuracy is hardly relevant.

Congressman BillyBob posits the insignificance of 16 little words out of thousands, I posit the status quo pre-emptive surrender incompetence displayed whenever a Republican is challenged by the nitwittery of the left.

To prove the accuracy of a statement in the context of ridiculing your opponent into silence would be a useful technique.

Perhaps someone will teach Karl Rove the technique before President "Read my lips, no new tyranny" loses his shot at a second term.

I was up until 3:15 a.m. this morning, tracking down real figures on attacks, sabotage and casualties in Germany after WW II. Finally found the records for VII Corps (Patton's unit). Sent the info to Jerry Agar on-air in Raleigh, who's temporarily filling in for their morning man. He broke the story this morning.

So are you just going to drive us crazy or are you going to inform us good folk who don't live anywhere near Raleigh what they are?

So far, I've only been able to get the data for VII Corps, which was only part of the American occupation of Germany, which as you recall was divided into four sectors -- American, British, French and Russian. But here are the conclusions:

1. The US had about the same number of troops in Germany after WW II as it now has in Iraq. (That makes comparisons very easy.)

2. If VII Corps (Patton's unit) was typical of the other units, the US suffered the same casualties, meaning both wounded and killed, by enemy action in Germany then, as it is in Iraq today. And the casualties continued at about the same rate for almost a year.

3. The nature of sabotage in Germany was different -- US communications depended on transmission over wires strung on poles, and those were the primary target -- but the number of acts of sabotage were about the same.

4. Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, created the "Werewolves" just before Germany fell. It used recruits as young as 12 to carry out armed attacks on Americans, and others. About half the attacks, however, were by German soldiers and some foreigners who entered the country to carry out such attacks. These were not organized centrally.

5. Most people belived until December, 1945, that Hitler might still be alive and encouraging the attacks. General Eisenhower was still under standing orders to "capture Hitler." There were rumors that Hitler was operating out of Bavaria, or Argentina, among others. Documents captured in December finally pinned down the suicide of Hitler and Eva Braun and the burning of their bodies outside the Bunker, in May, 1945.

6. Neither the New York Times nor any other major American news outlet said of Germany in 1945-46 that the US was "in a quagmire," or that the losses "were excessive," or that the American people were growing "tired of the losses," or that the war "might not have been justified." In short, the differences between 1945-46 and 2003-2004 are not in the facts on the ground, but solely in how the press is reacting to the facts on the ground.

You will, no doubt, see that every paragraph above from the history of US soldiers in Germany after WW II is a nearly identical parallel to the current situation in Iraq. If these facts are dug out and finally reported, putting the German occupation side by side with the Iraq one, it will be another battle for truth that began on the Internet, and I am the person who fired the first shot in that battle.

Congressman Billybob

P.S. I hope that satisfactorily answers your questions. If your estimate of 600 casualties then includes wounded, it is slightly high. If it is deaths only, it is way high.

If these facts are dug out and finally reported, putting the German occupation side by side with the Iraq one, it will be another battle for truth that began on the Internet, and I am the person who fired the first shot in that battle.

Uh, "Genius", that should be "nuclear" (lower case). And I'm far more concerned about a president or first lady or vice president who willfully refuses to speak the truth at every public venue.

Interesting. In the smoldering wreck of your Republican Brain you discover standards and values. Cherish those thoughts.

Tomorrow my problem will be solved with a better spell/grammar checker.

Tomorrow you will remain a member of the Republican Party(motto: we not only quit, we advance the Fabian Soviet Socialist agenda before, during and after our capitulation) Who has the bigger problem?

This notion the current President is superior to the previous President because of some (few) virtues borders on ludicrous.

It is preferable to deal with a burglar rather than a strong arm robber, rapist or molester, but all should be avoided in business deals and certainly should not be left in charge of national affairs under any circumstances.

The Republicans had an opportunity to beat Clintigula fair and square in 1996. They blew it.

They had another opportunity to remove him from office in 1998 and blew it again.

They came within a hair of losing the Y2K election and now after nearly three years of relentless idiocy we hear the same sad song: Support Bush and the Republicans or the Republic will go to hell in a handbasket.

Newsflash: The Republic IS in HELL with or without a handbasket.

One more good sucker punch and the thin veneer of civilization will peel off this society like a cheap composite entry door facing the noon day sun.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.